/sci/ - Science & Math

I would mind, makes things much easier and it's satisfying to know that everyone is experiencing what your experiencing

>>6648731

Provide this claim, articles from several different sources, please.

Also, he's a bad scientist if he says he 'proved' anything. He may have performed an experiment in which the results support his hypothesis. Even gravity is not 'proven', it merely has overwhelming evidence and easily replicable experiment results.

>>6648738
wouldn't mind*

>>6648731
Yeah but what KIND of simulation? The graphics/resolution of the parent space/universe and ours would not be similar in any way. Think aboot how much computing power you would need to simulate our OWN universe all the way down to the planck length (and possibly beyond) as well as the entire macroscopic universe. Impossible to do at oiur current resolution or graphical capabilities. If we simulated a universe, the graphics would be much much less, probably only being able to get down to the cellualr level, if that. This leads me to beleive that any space simulating our own would ahve to be a HIGHER REALITY of some sort, possibly not even like our own universe at all. Possibly 4th dimensional (look how easy it is to simulate 2d games of life for us).

>>6648742
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYeN66CSQhg

Just listened him here, and on a Noble conference

at 01:00 min

01:00.00 *

>>6648731
>yfw you realize that physics can be reduced to mathematical equations, and therefore simulation and physical reality are philosophically equivalent

>>6648742

ttp://www.bottomlayer.com/2011%20Asimov%20Debate%20transcript%20excerpts.pdf

Oh and in case you thing Prof. Gate is some sort of fringe, 'paranormal' pseudo-physicist then here you go:

http://umdphysics.umd.edu/research/theoretical/135.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates


He is pretty much Morpheus at this point.

>>6648764
>implying every atom in the universe actually has to be simulated at all times
Hint: When you're playing GTA5, if you're on one side of the city, the game is not calculating what NPCs are doing on the other side of the city

>>6648824
>implying all those rewards aren't 100% affirmative action

>>6648829
I kek'd

>>6648826
So you are saying something along the lines of "objective reality doesn't exist unless there is an observer?" I think that's bollocks personally, even with the simulation argument. There are no such things as NPCs in our universe, every quanta is an actor on the universal stage. They would pretty much have to be simulating the entire universe as a whole because, frankly, our universe is not a 1 player game dude.

>>6648731
>black science man
we morpheus now

>>6648834

But that is not how simulations work, even with multiple users. If you are talking about the influence of celestial objects, sunlight, etc. for example across the universe: that can be simulated without actually having to run the program sun.exe, galaxy.exe, etc.

You can simulate the way the whole universe works together when needed.

>>6648834
Essentially I am saying exactly that, except I want to disclaim that by "observer" I do ****NOT**** mean "conscious sentient being" (this one single confusion is responsible for 100% of the kooky paranormal quacks who claim quantum physics backing)

How can you say every single quanta is an actor on the universal stage, when you don't know what the point of the simulation actually is? For all we know, some scientist in the parent universe is running an experiment whose sole purpose is to see what happens to Detroit Michigan when the great chimpout occurs, and everything else in the universe is bottom priority

>>6648848
>Detroit Michigan when the great chimpout occurs,

Welp, now I know I'm on /sci/. Stay classy.


Like I said, there are no NPCs. Every iota is an actor. The simulation wouldn't be to run some bullshit on a backwater planet in the milkyway as to what happens after billions of years of evolution to see "what happens when some racism happens" in a particular city, it would be something grander than that, like, "how do the neighboring planets all evolve intelligent life, NOT all kill each other, and either survive the end of their simulated universe by getting OUT of the simulation or making it into the next simulation round" nobody simulates an entire universe with sentient, sophic beings over trivial bullshit, there would be ethics involved in even creating a universe simulation.

>>6648848
>Essentially I am saying exactly that

Except that is bordering on solipsism dude, are you daying that if every person, plant and bacteria left your apartment building and turned around, it would cease to exist (barring that it just disaapears, let's say the inside isn't "rendered" while eveyone is outside and turned around. That is fucking psychotic.

captcha: doctor enirac

>>6648869
You sure are confident about these bold statements about something completely beyond any of our comprehension. Are you a deity or something?

People in our own universe run stupid superfluous simulations all the fucking time, they're called games. A city in Sid Meier's Civilization has a million populace, you think the game is actually simulating a million people down to individual atoms? (When the player's looking at another city?)

>>6648878
I never said anything of the sort. You're making the black-and-white fallacy that it's either "every last quanta is simulated perfectly" or "when i close my eyes the universe dies"

>>6648824
>look at all these awards he has!
>appeal to authority

>>6648824
>Wikipedia lists one single book
>zero, ZERO, journal papers
what a bizarre coincidence that political paymasters singled this man out as a scientific guru without a shred of evidence in his favor. It couldn't *conceivably* have anything to do with his skin color or anything of that nature

>>6648889
>I never said anything of the sort. You're making the black-and-white fallacy that it's either "every last quanta is simulated perfectly" or "when i close my eyes the universe dies"

Then please expand your reasoning for me, I honestly want to know how you are interpreting this.

> you think the game is actually simulating a million people down to individual atoms?
Computer games don't use atoms, the player models are made of little surface triangles with no "meat". This is similar to the resolution difference between our reality and the parent space (most likely). WHether the Sims in Sid Meier's games themselves are aware is another story entirely, I meana they do seem to have some sort of ai. Perhaps there is an intelligence discrepency between our universe and the parent reality as well in the same vein as the resolution/graphical difference.

I'm not saying these things with certainty, you would just need SO MUCH processing power to simulate an entire "alike" universe inside a computer in your own universe. Reverting to only rendering areas around "player characters" (which you still have to define btw, I've already stated my position that all quanta are "actors" so there could be no partial rendering) is selling your simulation potential short.

>>6648764
>>6648834
>>6648869
>>6648878

Fuck off tripfag

>>6648889
>You're making the black-and-white fallacy that it's either "every last quanta is simulated perfectly" or "when i close my eyes the universe dies"
Also, that's not what I said, youre exaggerating.

>>6648913
yawn, get a better insult and crawl back into relative nonexistance anon.

>>6648912
I never said the simulation is necessarily "only simulating around player characters", that's your own projection talking or something dude.

It's like this. Bill Gates pays you to program a Playstation game where you're a scientist and you run around and you have a microscope and you can look at stuff with your microscope. Do you...
A) Program the game to simulate and keep track of every microscopic particle in the level at all moments?

or
B) Dynamically generate microscopic features using an algorithm that's partially random and partially based on what's being looked at, and only when the player actually uses the microscope?

Given inifinite time and energy, and computer parts that do not fail, you could run a complete simulation of the universe on a simple laptop just by simulating one Planck time at a time, pausing for however long is necessary to update every Planck voxel in the universe, and repeating.

>>6648921
Well, the "money saving" answer is B, but i much more interactive game would be A. But again, you are taking this position of a 1 player game. There are trillions and trillions of players around you all the time, everywhere, even if you stop the Player Characters at bacteria and don't go down to the level of quanta. Your proposing the simulation was made FOR humans on earth, while I'm assuming we would be relatively unknown in the grande scale of the universal simulation. One of those positions looks alot like an old,outdated model of the solar system, fyi.

I wonder what the biggest universe would be that we would be able to run in realtime using current tech

>>6648940
>given infinite time
a rendering mode like this would require infinite time, something a conventional 3d universe doesn; have (the simulating species would be extinct by the time the first galaxies evolved in the sim), so again thusly, I would have to believ this kind of simulation too would have to be being comuted in a Bulk space 4d computer by "timeless" 4d scientists.

>>6648949
Nothing I said ever implied a privileged status for humans (except the Detroit chimpout thing but that was obviously just flavor, Mr. Rainman).

>Our universe is a giant MMO where the PCs are Glagglebloths, enormous godlike space beings that you and I could never comprehend and to whom you and I are utterly insignificant
>A Glagglebloth closely inspects a "room" (galaxy cluster, to us), causing that "room" to be temporarily (billions of years, to us) simulated with higher resolution
>Mankind evolves from dust entirely by accident during that time

>>6648967
With resolution down to the planck length? Maybe a planet or a solar system?

>>6648968
Whatever makes you happy

>>6648968
>the simulating species would be extinct by the time
Rookie Mistake #1: Attributing physical laws of our own universe unto the parent universe

GTFO, don't you have freshman orientation or something to go to?

>>6648968
4D computers might find it trivial to generate a universe like ours

>>6648972
>A planet in real-time with Planck length resolution
lmfao

>>6648974
>Ricefriend claims to prove big open problem, simultaneously implicitly disproving everything we know about Ricefriends' creativity and ingenuity
>Many months later, no solid evidence forthcoming
>Ricefriend Internet Defense Force goes into panic mode, tries to change the narrative to "it's the theory that matters"
>I point out that the theory totally doesn't matter worth shit
Rather than irrelevant, that last line is basically the climax of the whole thing

>>6648971
This is actually something I can get behind. Why didnt you just say this in the first place man. Geez.

>>6648975
Look into Conway's Game of Life. Same shit, but now with dimensional analogy. Mmm, crunchy.

>>6648974
You missed th part where I'm proposing our parent universe is in 4d Bulk space, negating pretty much any similarity to our own besides a propensity for "life" of some sort.

>>6648975
It's not about the dimensions, it's about the architecture. If there was some super fast computer architecture that could only work with four dimensions, a theoretical computer scientist would have already written a paper on it.

>>6648982
ugh, wrong thread

Captcha: cursedly delineated

>>6648986
Well we only just got round to making 3D CPUs
Imagine a 4D one

And there are multidimensional data architectures already (like ZigZag for example)

>>6648983
>negating pretty much any similarity to our own besides a propensity for "life" of some sort
and, you know, the whole "finite lifetime of universe" thing, which is absolutely NOT a safe assumption when talking about something as unkonwable as our parent universe

>>6648869
>there would be ethics involved in even creating a universe simulation.

>>6648731

How's this any less believable than the 10 or 12 dimensional models of string theory.

>>6648731
ok I'm throwing this out there: in order to simulate the universe you'll need to store somewhere all the information in it. The total information contained in the observable universe is 10^120 bits. The biggest storage device you can build can hold up to 10^60 bits before it collapses into a black hole, much less than the total information in the universe. In conclusion we cannot be a simulation.

>>6649078
>>6649078

If it has to be simulated from higher dimensions, then those limitations wouldn't apply.

>>6648869
>Like I said, there are no NPCs. Every iota is an actor.
How do you know? Can you prove it?

>>6648918
>yawn
Who does this shit anymore?

>>6648901

>muh Wiki authority

http://www.umdphysics.umd.edu/images/CV/gates_cv.pdf

Here's his CV. He's got close to 200 published research papers.

This isn't Tyson we're talking about here. Gates is a legit research scientist.

>>6649078
I don't think this value takes compression of data into account. considering the amount of our universe which is empty space and how homogeneous it generally is, not to mention the similarity of the composition of stars, the compressed value for that data is probably much less than 10^120 bits.

>>6649012
If there are "real conscious people" down there, you bet your ass, you are playing God.

>>6649128
I subscribe to quantum animism so I've of the mind that mind permeates all, thus making all iota even "aware" of couyrse to a hugely smaller degree than ourselves as humans (they probably don't think, maybe experience in the most absic of levels) but this is why I say down to quanta would be actual observers or actors. I can't prove it at the moment, I'm just speculating here anyways, this is a simulated universe thread remember.

>>6649138
Your complaining offtopicly to a stranger who likes to keep track of his posts for doing such. Bugger off.

>>6649201
>Your complaining offtopicly to a stranger who likes to keep track of his posts for doing such. Bugger off.
>who likes to keep track of his posts
If you have to "keep track" of your own posts then you very obviously have brain problems. You'd be better off just admitting that you're just a shallow fuck begging for attention.

>>6649211
It's also fun to be held accountable for your words and actions, you should try it sometime. Now stay on topic.

>>6649223
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thfKq71cNZM
You're welcome you histrionic faggot.

>>6649234
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thfKq71cNZM
Thanks for the meme matey.

>>6649243
It's really the most thought out type of response you deserve.
Kindly take your shit back to reddit.

>>6649201
>I subscribe to quantum animism so I've of the mind that mind permeates all
>Subscribing to dualism
>>>/x/

>>6649271
Well, no, matter would just be condensed consiousness, not a duality. Light would be the perveyor of consciousness from higher Bulk space, maybe even the consciousness of teh Simulators themselves. Everything else I've said in this thread has been valid, why not Mind Theory? Makes sense from a simulated perspective too, like reincarnation, why not program that in.

>>6649278
>Well, no, matter would just be condensed consiousness, not a duality.
I love how you immediately contradict yourself.

>>6649223

Why does /sci/ tolerate tripfags?

>>6649282
it wouldn't be a duality, more aof a spectrum, theres more than just material and consciousness anyways, there's astral shit too, higher dimensional immaterium. It would defs be a spectrum.

>>6649283
Appparently it;'s your bedtime grumpy buddy

>>6648731
>What do you guys think about this physicist and about his claim that he found the proof that we are living in Matrix ?
isn't that an over-simplification?

I can believe that we would not be able to perceive the difference but that does not make it real.

Its sort of like the Zen interpretation that all of reality that we perceive is illusion.

Modern physics tells us that the objects we touch every day are mostly empty space when "our" reality is a solid object.

we look at a screen and see motion when all that is really there is a series of flickering dots in a large matrix that very quickly flash one by one, there is never a whole picture displayed only the individual dots, one on all the rest off. but we perceive it as a moving image.

>>6649283
/sci/ tolerates tripfags?

>yfw reality is a self-simulating language

>>6649292
it is late and I'm sleepy I forgot the pick

>>6649167
compression at that level of information is meaningless. Multiply any compression ratio of your best lossless compression algorithm to that figure an you'll still en up with 10^120 bits.

>>6649291
>theres more than just material and consciousness anyways, there's astral shit too, higher dimensional immaterium. It would defs be a spectrum.
Please get the fuck out of /sci/. This is just embarrassing.

>>6649302
if you are implying that the universe itself is the computer then there is no simulation to begin with, every thing is real.

>>6648824
he's also a terrible professor for what it's worth

>>6649307
reread this thread. The simulation is basically coming from and being computed by higher Bulk, 4d beings. They would be (are?) gods to us. You best get to /x/ and read up.

>>6649312
I think the whole hypothesis presupposes something outside the universe as we know it

>container can't contain itself

>>6649323
>The simulation is basically coming from and being computed by higher Bulk, 4d beings.
[citation needed]

>>6649326
Unless the Bulk naturally evolves 3d simulated universe computers of course.

>>6649332
It's time for you to stop posting.

>>6649325
self-containment:

reality includes all and only that which is real

>>6648731
What he found sounds highly like mathematical coincidence. A graph theory method for deriving certain equations in SUSY is similar to a computer code. Woopdeefuckingdoo.

>replying to tripfags

>>>/reddit/

>>6649336
SInce youre not adding anything to this discussion I guess I'll have to.

>>6649332
I agree with gates, but your not helping the argument. Just showing your not familiar with computational Quantum theories.

Since i'm running out of time, here's a free lecture you might wan't to watch if you don't wan't look like a troll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-qkQ86fXIs&list=UUaTLZxxhHOwx0YKZZ89fGUg

>>6649325
I'm gonna play my Gödel card. The universe as a consistent entity cannot be explained by the symbols contained within. Thus if there is a bigger system that can explain our universe it is unreachable by us -- the observers in this universe. This means that the idea of whether our universe is a simulation or not is irrelevant, we will observe the universe as a real entity.

>>6649405
I'll add something when you stop talking out of your asshole.

>>6648731
A Theory is just that, a theory...not fact
Multiple theories have been superseded.
To say that you've proven something is to say that it you've found an undeniable fact

>>6648731
Samuel L. Jackson isn't a physicist.

>>6649921
no, but morgan freeman is

>>6648731
What is the matrix living in?

>>6648810
>yfw you realise that the only reason mathematical equations explain our reality is because our math is derived from it.

Maybe we are living in a matrix like SAO, and we are all great descendants of the original players.
Maybe we can't do anything about it since we were made by the matrix so we can't beat it.
Maybe our entire existence is on a server long abandoned.

>>6650061
the hypermatrix, obviously

Don't take any pills he offers you.

The red one will induce a permanent state of severe schizophrenia. You will live the rest of your life in an elaborate system of bizarre paranoid delusions, supported by vivid, convincing hallucinations. It's highly likely that you will become violent.

The blue one is a roofie.

My guess is this is the stuff OPs crowing about

http://www.onbeing.org/program/uncovering-codes-reality/feature/symbols-power-adinkras-and-nature-reality/1460